Food insecurity is a serious issue facing households in the United States. In 2012, the time this study was begun, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that almost 15% of U.S. households and one in five households with children were considered to be food insecure. Over one third of these experienced very low food security (VLFS), with multiple indicators of disrupted eating patterns due to inadequate resources. These statistics are of particular concern because children without consistent access to sufficient and nutritious food show sustained disadvantages, including effects on cognition, academic performance, long-term nutritional status, and psychosocial development. To improve their food security, households utilize three types of coping strategies- (1) participating in federal feeding and financial assistance programs ("safety net"), (2) obtaining food from nongovernment Emergency Food Providers (EFPs), and (3) using individually developed coping strategies. The objectives of this study related to developing a better understanding of the coping strategies that VLFS households with children use to ensure that their households have sufficient food. Specifically, the study addressed two main research questions: What are the interdependencies among three types of coping strategies: participating in federal feeding and financial assistance programs ("safety net"), obtaining food from EFPs, and using individually developed coping strategies. What decision-making processes do people in VLFS households with children use when selecting coping strategies to ensure that their households have sufficient food? The investigators conducted a two-phased mixed-methods study of coping strategies used by VLFS households with children <18 years in North Carolina (NC), using a socio-ecological theoretical framework to guide their hypotheses, methods, and analyses. For phase I, the investigators employed a cross sectional, observational design. The investigators used a two-stage sample to recruit 320 clients of service providers who offer assistance to people with limited resources within eight NC counties with the highest food insecurity rates. Trained interviewers administered in-person a survey interview asking clients socio-demographic questions and about their use of three categories of coping strategies. Using a longitudinal design, more than a year after Phase I, in Phase II, the investigators completed in depth interviews with a cohort (n=28) of Phase I participants, selected using maximum variation sampling. During the largely unscripted interviews, participants were asked a select number of close ended questions from Phase I, including the 18 item food security module, to assess changes over the past year and permit comparisons between times one and two. To address the first question, two by two and multi-dimensional contingency tables were constructed to analyze the interdependencies among the three types of coping strategy outcomes. Descriptive statistics (odds ratios, counts and percentages) were performed to define the magnitude of the association among coping strategies. Fisher's exact tests and Chi-square statistics were then employed to assess the statistical significance of the interdependency among the outcomes. To further determine the interdependencies among the three coping strategies, and to assess how individual and household-level factors affect those interdependencies, the investigators employed log-linear models. To address the second research question, the investigators formulated a hierarchically ordered, analytical coding structure that reflected key decision-making constructs (e.g., knowledge of coping strategies, perception of risk of accessibility and availability of coping strategies, barriers to participation in "safety net" programs) and examined the results in terms of the key constructs. Lastly, responses to both sets of questions were jointly reviewed using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), a mixed-methods analysis technique. The investigators implemented a conventional, crisp set for (1) developing typologies of households and individuals experiencing very low food insecurity, and (2) exploring pathways to improving food security status among participants in the follow-up interviews. All procedures involving human participants was reviewed and approved by RTI International's Institutional Review Board (IRB).